Okay, quick and honest question: How does this support / not support the theory of young earth creationism? For someone who believes that the earth is 6000 or so years old, and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that DNA doesn't last nearly _that long_, this seems like pretty definite proof of that being possible. Counterpoint?
That rests on the premise that dna doesn’t last that long. But maybe it does and that premise is wrong. Alternatively radio carbon dating must be wrong and with it large parts of chemistry. So I would weigh the strengths of both and maybe scrutinize each premise for their respective scientific basis.
Young earth creationism isn't predicated on any kind of consistent or logical position.
Its advocates almost without exception, do not give a shit about the facts, and you aren't going to sway them with another few pebbles added to the absolute mountain of evidence that their position is flawed.
Debating them like their position has merit and is reasonable is a hopeless waste of time, and is in fact exactly what they want because it puts their position on level footing with the scientific consensus.
